Dismissed¶¶16

Kumari Priyanka and Another v. Mebal Christian

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Jun 2025COPC/254/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court contempt petition dismissed; no willful disobedience found where petitioners serving as daily wage Teachers were already outsource employees engaged through a Man Power Agency when the writ directions of 30.04.2019 were passed; oral judgment by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel; COPC No.254 of 2024 in CWP No.5386 of 2014; decided 21.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; notice stands discharged. ¶¶16

Kumari Priyanka and Another Vs Mebal Christian — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:19364

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No.254 of 2024 in CWP No.5386 of 2014 Decided on: 21.06.2025

¶4

Kumari Priyanka & another … Petitioners Versus Mrs. Mabel Christian CEO … Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India.

¶8

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶9

By way of this contempt petition, the petitioners allege willful disobedience of the directions that were passed by this Court on 30.04.2019, while disposing of the writ petition.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that despite the fact that the petitioners were imparting their services on daily wage basis as Teachers after the judgment was passed by the Court, the respondents have willfully disobeyed the directions passed by the Court by converting their status to that of outsource employees.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, by referring to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent has submitted that there is no disobedience of the

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

2025:HHC:19364

¶15

Court directions whatsoever leave aside willful disobedience, for the reason that as when the writ petition was decided by the Court, the services of the petitioners were engaged on outsource basis. To demonstrate this fact, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has referred to the documents appended with the reply Annexure-C onward, perusal of which demonstrates that services of the petitioners as well as other similar incumbents were engaged on outsource basis through Man Power Agencies.

¶16

That being the case, as this Court does not concurs with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that status of the petitioners was altered after the judgment passed by the Court, because their status at the time of the decision of the Court was of an employee serving on outsource basis having been engaged through a Man Power Agency. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any willful disobedience of the directions passed by the Court, accordingly, present contempt petition is dismissed. Notice stands discharged.

¶17

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 21, 2025 (Rishi)

Kumari Priyanka and Another v. Mebal Christian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Priyanka and Another v. Mebal Christian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritam Singh and Others Vs M. Sudha Devi and Another

Chandu Ram Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Pravesh Vs State of Hp and Others

Balak Ram Chauhan Vs Neelam Shami Rao and Others

Laxmi Nand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs C. Paulrasu and Others